The Iraq thread 4

[denoir 0]

Holy fuck, they wern't kidding when they said the Sunni didn't vote:

From BBC

Quote[/b] ]

PROVISIONAL RESULTS

Shia list: 48%

Kurdish parties: 26%

Iyad Allawi list: 14%

Others: 12%

Turnout: 58%

The "Shia list" is the Ayatollah Ali Sistani's party.

Who would have imagined it, the US invading a country to put an Ayatollah in power

[billybob2002 0]

Holy fuck, they wern't kidding when they said the Sunni didn't vote:

From BBC

Quote[/b] ]

PROVISIONAL RESULTS

Shia list: 48%

Kurdish parties: 26%

Iyad Allawi list: 14%

Others: 12%

Turnout: 58%

The "Shia list" is the Ayatollah Ali Sistani's party.

Who would have imagined it, the US invading a country to put an Ayatollah in power

The weird part is that the Sunnis still want a say in the constitution making process. At least, the Shias don't have a majority and will need the others for support.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Who would have imagined it, the US invading a country to put an Ayatollah in power

and we are Imperialist?!?!?!?!?!

anyways, i'm pretty sure in Whitehouse they are going 'oh shit'. it is easier to have cooperative person in control than independent thinker like Al-Sisitani.

However, in neautral term, as long as Al-Sistani can keep his religion off the politics, that would be good. but then again, he is a muslim cleric so separation of church and state could be in jeopardy.

nice to see that Kurds can get some vote. instead of asking for independence, they can now take a good share in future election, thus driving their ambition down just a little bit. They certainly cannot take of Iraq, but they certainly cannot risk loosing that much either.

anyways, here's a sarcastic statement that conservatives may use at will

Quote[/b] ]American influence: Great for democracy, Great for Islam

[ran 0]

Iraqi Armor

South African designs are weird.

Those vehicles aren't South African.

I would love to know what they really are, they look baddass

Quote[/b] ]So I see why they won't give them newer T-80's or even T-72's

They are getting T72's from Romania. NATO's only looking for a way to transport them to Iraq

I think the APC is french (i cannot remember). Anyway, I wonder what variant of the T-72 they are getting from Rom.

This vehicle is a VCR (Vehicule de Combat Å• Roue - wheeled combat vehicle) from Panhard.

We sold about 100 of them in the antitank version to the Iraqis back in the "good ol' days". It's never been fielded by the french army but it's what led to the ERC 90 Sagaie.

[denoir 0]

anyways, i'm pretty sure in Whitehouse they are going 'oh shit'. it is easier to have cooperative person in control than independent thinker like Al-Sisitani.

However, in neautral term, as long as Al-Sistani can keep his religion off the politics, that would be good. but then again, he is a muslim cleric so separation of church and state could be in jeopardy.

Well, what did they expect? The worrying thing about Sistani is that he's very similar to Khomeini. Back then, Khomeini was looked upon like a moderate religious leader, with no political ambitions.

The US ambassador in Iran concluded that "Khomeini wants to be pope, not king". And we all know how that ended.

While I don't want to blacklist a whole religion, the Shia leadership has always had a very clear view of how things should be run. And we're talking about an Iran-style theocracy that makes Bush look like a radical atheist. The Shia vision of Iraq, and the western vision of how Iraq should be, are very different.

Of course, the matter is more complicated as religious rule is supported by a significant portion of the population.

[theavonlady 2]

Let's see who's right - you outsiders or the insiders:

Quote[/b] ]Democracy in progress.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Congratulations to the Iraqi people,

The results are for the best of Iraq and its future; Iraqis have put the corner stone for the state of law and constitution and have proved to the world how the region's nations are eager for freedom and how much they reject the concepts of violence and despotism that were imposed by fire and steel.

The ballot and the box have won and the purple fingers garnished the beautiful picture.

The high turnout in circumstances that were considered to be the most dangerous was like a candle that leads the road for the rest of freedom seeking people and gave lesson in courage and determination and reminds even those who lived their whole lives in democracies about the bravery of their founding fathers who struggled and sacrificed for the sake of their children's future and prosperity.

The winners are in front of a historic responsibility of drawing the future of Iraq and defining its new identity. Their load is heavy but the most important thing is that the people back them and back the writing of the permanent constitution.

I was so happy today while watching the results being displayed on TV although I didn't get the seat I dreamed of. Little parties like ours couldn't compete with the larger ones that own radio and TV networks and had their banners and posters filling the streets while I had to borrow from my friends to pay the 5000 $ registration fees of the party because the support we received for the party from our friends and supporters hasn't reached Baghdad till this moment because of some banking bureaucracy. All we had was 3000 $ to spend on advertising and publicity and managing all the party's affairs.

Add to this that the candidates of small parties had to accept risking their lives as we made ourselves easy targets for the terrorists; we don't have the adequate personal protection like the famous figures who live in heavily protected quarters and protected by hundreds of bodyguards.

While candidates like me live among the people and walk on the streets, in the past few weeks we saw several Iraqi politicians targeted and assassinated, but our participation was more important than anything else because it gave more credit to the elections and we're happy with that role.

The world will remember the number "7461"; these were the candidates who didn't submit for blackmailing and decided to take the responsibility despite the threats and the dangers.

If small parties like ours haven't participated, the elections wouldn't have succeeded the way it did.

I see that we didn't lose at all, on the contrary, we won and the only loser is terror and its dictators allies.

We will always have the chance to participate again and our voice will always be heard and we will not give up on what we started.

The political map in my opinion will witness many changes in the coming 6 months and alliances will be reshaped and the small entities will seek forming bigger masses in order to get a better representation in the future elections which are not far away.

And I believe that the major parties will try to form an alliance to balance forces with the winning list of the United Coalition which I assume will be working hard on its end to satisfy the other parties as it needs the support of the other half to pass its projects and legislations and now its obvious that the United Coalition is 'flirting' with others through messages of reassurance focusing on the idea that the United Coalition has no will to make Iraq an Islamic state and on that Islam will not be the only source of legislations in the coming constitution.

On the other hand, the SCIRI demands for respecting Islam seem reasonable and realistic more than conservative, as securing the unity of the coalition requires also reassuring the secular members of the list.

Moreover some members from the same list stated that they would like to see a Kurdish president for Iraq and in a statement for Hussein Sharistani, one of the coalition's leading figures, he said "to prove to the people that the coalition is democratic in nature, the ministers or PM that are to be chosen from our list will be elected by the 131 members and not by the elite or the big figures of the coalition".

Also there were other statements coming from inside the coalition refusing the idea of planning a withdrawal schedule for the Multinational forces from Iraq as Ibrahim Al-Jaafari said who considered that calls for a withdrawal are aiming at creating chaos and a civil war.

These statements and many similar ones refute the expectations about Iraq becoming a "copy" of Iran. All this and more proves the reasonability of the suggested choices with an invitation for open talks and negotiations.

Generally speaking, all politicians realize the role of the United States and the coalition forces in protecting the new born democracy and most of the major players realize the necessity of a strategic partnership with the United States for the good of Iraq and for the success of the war on terror.

The event of elections in Iraq was a huge turning point in the history of the region and Iraqis and their political parties have proved-despite the lack of experience-that they can do well and show high performance in a process of change that represents the first signs of a bright future for this country and the Middle east.

No one will stop the train of democracy and those who stand against the change will soon be nothing but forgotten.

Mohammed.

[quicksand 0]

US troops to withdraw from Ramadi: Iraqi official

Quote[/b] ]RAMADI, Iraq, Feb. 13 (Xinhuanet) — US forces will withdraw from the city of Ramadi in the restive Anbar province to pave the way for Iraqi security forces to take up responsibility in the country, an official said Sunday.

"The US forces informed the governor of Anbar of the withdrawal, which will take place in the middle of this month", the official, who declined to be named, told Xinhua.

"They will withdraw to two main bases outside the city", he said, adding the Iraqi army and police will be responsible for the security in the city.

US troops have begun to hand over the security control in parts of Baghdad, including the flashpoint Haifa street, to Iraqiˇˇforces, according to local reports.

"Hey lookie there at Ramadi,it's ellections time and the city is in complete control of foreign terrorists,guess we'll have to put a siege on the city,breaking the back of the insurgency once and for all,saving the civillians who are held hostage by Al-Zarqawi"

[denoir 0]

Let's see who's right - you outsiders or the insiders:

Who do you refer to by the "insiders"?

1) The Ayatollah's supporters?

2) The Sunni who didn't show up to the polls?

3) The Bushofilic people at "Iraq the Model"?

4) The people who keep blowing stuff and people up, in some form of protest?

And those are just the internal divisions. What about the nice little fact that they've elected a fundamentalist government whose supporters see Iran as the model soceity? You don't think a theocratic rule in Iraq (which most Shiites support) would be a problem for.. oh... I don't know... Israel?

Do you really think that the US will stand by and let another Iran form? If not, what will happen when the Iraqi government tells the US troops to get lost?

[python3 0]

what can they do? I mean that gov't was elected, and Bush said if it were told to get lost they would. Dunno if they will overthrow the gov't, but that would lead to a nationwide revolt

[Acecombat 0]

Another war , thats just great

Why are all the people who bitched about democracy now bitching about the elected govts policy , whatever happened to the 'power to the people' thing?

What do these people want with Iraq anyway? The way people are racting it almost seems as if everyone wants a govt of their own style (a.k.a. dicataorship)

[Necromancer- 0]

Well.. if its a Shia government the Iraqi's want.. then that's what they'll get.

Only the Kurds worry me, because i'm quite sure they'll want independence in the end.

[EiZei 0]

Well.. if its a Shia government the Iraqi's want.. then that's what they'll get.

Only the Kurds worry me, because i'm quite sure they'll want independence in the end.

With that kind of neighbors youd be wanting too

[EiZei 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4266231.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Iraq agency 'run like Wild West'

The Coalition Provisional Authority, the US-led agency that ran Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, has been accused of wasting millions of dollars.

Speaking to a Senate panel, a former CPA official said the body's processes for handling contractors were as chaotic as the Wild West.

Almost two years after the war, 80% of the $18bn set aside by the US Congress for rebuilding Iraq remains unspent.

A Pentagon spokesman said the CPA had worked under very difficult conditions.

Incompetence claims

Democratic senators called the hearing into the management of the reconstruction funds, saying the Republicans who run Congress have declined to investigate fraud in Iraq.

What they heard did not please them.

Former CPA official Franklin Willis told the US Senate Democratic Policy Committee there was widespread abuse and waste of money at the authority.

Former CPA official Franklin Willis

Franklin Willis said inexperience and minimal security led to chaos

He showed pictures of himself and other US officials holding up plastic-wrapped bundles of $100 notes, worth $2m. They were used to pay a security contractor.

Mr Willis said a combination of inexperienced officials, fear of decision-making, lack of communications, minimal security, no banks and lots of money to spend led to a Wild West type of chaos.

These allegations of incompetence come just weeks after an audit of the CPA's handling of more than $20bn of Iraq's own money found that a lack of oversight had left the funds open to corruption.

A Pentagon spokesman said the CPA had striven for sound management and transparency under extremely difficult conditions.

Wonder if the reconstruction efforts will be made more efficient with the new goverment..

[quicksand 0]

Video of Selman Pak rebel attack

I've watched the video over and over to make sure there isn't any gore and now I'm positevly sure there is not.It's a video captured by the Iraqi rebels showing them lobying mortars on the police station,seting ablaze police cars and driving them on the streets,comfortable with no one to challange their stance-kinda chilling since we mostly hear of hit&run attacks.

Survivors tell of massive assault in Iraq rebel fiefdom

Quote[/b] ]US and Iraqi troops kept watch on Friday over this town southeast of Baghdad after the battle that saw rebels firing rockets, mortars and machine guns in a full-scale assault.

"According to our latest toll there were 10 police killed and 75 wounded," a Salman Pak police officer said, adding that 46 police vehicles were destroyed in the fighting, which lasted several hours.

"We have never seen such fighting," said the officer.

"We knew that the area of Salman Pak was dangerous," said Mustafa Hussein, 26, lying in hospital with a wounded leg.

"When we arrived the shops were shut and the empty streets lined with photos of Saddam Hussein and calls for jihad holy war. '

"Then armed men attacked us from everywhere. We tried to withdraw but each street we took turned out to be a new trap."

US helicopters were sent to the scene and opened fired to dislodge the rebels. The town was sealed off by Iraqi and US troops but police said that it was calm.

Raids by government security forces appear to have triggered the battle.

Several police patrols were sent to Salman Pak on Thursday to carry out raids in a region that has become a well-documented trap for security forces and government convoys.

The police officer said that rebels retaliated soon afterward "with a panoply of arms including rocket launchers, mortars and machine guns." The police station was rapidly surrounded and attacked with rockets.

"We returned fire but there were too many of them and they were too well prepared. They had even put booby traps in our path," said the wounded Hussein.

SWAT team member Malek Mohammed agreed that the insurgents had been "extremely well organized".

"The attackers were all wearing black T-shirts and Republican Guard uniform," he said, referring to the disbanded elite wing of Saddam's armed forces.

"We each had only 60 bullets, which ran out after half-an-hour. So we took our dead colleagues' bullets and when they were used up, we went into houses to take the inhabitants' ammunition," said Mohammed whose leg was shattered in the attack.

"Most of the police didn't have flak jackets," he said.

"One of my friends found refuge in a house. The inhabitants gave him civilian clothes and told him that the rebels had been preparing the ambush for three days."

A police source said that officers inside the besieged building then made the plea for US help.

National Security Advisor Qassem Daoud said that 20 insurgents had been killed and 21 arrested.

He said "a terrorist group has been causing havoc in the region for two weeks".

On Thursday morning a police patrol that was sent to help a security force convoy heading for Baghdad made a grisly discovery near the town, a police officer said.

It found the remains of a government food convoy attacked about two days earlier. The drivers of about 20 trucks and four escorting soldiers and police had been burned in their vehicles.

The area is home to several Sunni Arab tribes who follow the radical Wahhabi brand of Islam that is the official religion in Saudi Arabia.

The road leading from Salman Pak to Baghdad is littered with the burned-out carcasses of cars attacked by the rebels.

"On the day after the January 30 elections, they stopped the traffic to see if any of the people had blue fingers," said a resident of a nearby village on condition of anonymity, in reference to the indelible ink used on polling day to stop voters casting more than one ballot.

"I know that at least 10 people had a finger cut off," he said.

According to the head of Iraqi intelligence, General Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, Salman Pak has become "guerrilla fiefdom". "To reclaim the city would take a real battle," he acknowledged.

[denoir 0]

What was seen on the video certainly does not give a impression of competence. There was no evidence of any organization or command structure or that it in any way was a well planned operation. It does however display poor handling of weapons, lack of organized movement etc.. Of course, we can't see everything on the video, but that's the impression it gives.

Of course, they have the at least equally incompetent Iraqi police on the other side. Had they attempted this against a US military target, the insurgents would have died like flies. And of course, that's what always happens at direct confrontations - such as Falluja. Usually it's 10-20 dead insurgents per dead US soldier.

The fact that they havn't been able to subdue the resistance shows that the problem is not directly a military one. It's that the insurgents have local support so that they can quickly blend in with the civilan population. Furthermore, at least on paper, the US forces don't have the same operational freedom as the insurgents have. They try to avoid calling in artillery strikes as support for fighting in populated areas etc. They try to use precision munitions to take buildings out (not too seldom wrong buildings due to bad intelligence).

There are of course plenty of exceptions, but as a rule the US forces generally don't use quite as indiscriminate violence as the insurgents do. It has probably more to do with skill than with intent, but still..

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]What was seen on the video certainly does not give a impression of competence

I am not so sure that that was the impression they wanted to give as much as they wanted a recruitment poster.Every time they fired their weapons they started chanting "God is Great" and in the second part you could see them parading an Iraqi policeman truck and they were all trying to look in firm control of the streets(and possibly were indeed),the video also never showed the direct skirmishes between the Iraqi security forces and them.

Here is  another intresting video of "Islamic Army in Iraq" an insurgent group thought to be made up of Saddam loyalists and released quite a handful of videos of attacks on US forces so they are most likely part of the better military trained insurgents,but I can't quite get it because of poor camera angles and quality if they are actually firing on targets or it's just for propaganda purposes,any other thoughts?

Islamic Army in Iraq(2.76 MB)

[miles teg 1]

Yeah, overall I agree with Quicksand.  Its difficult to find good combat photage from the insurgent side during these assaults as the cameraman usually is staying back in the rear.  The other stuff is just propaganda.  But according to some US soldiers wounded in Fellujah, they believed that some of the units were well trained.  One wounded US Marine on the BBC called them "a respectable enemy" that was able to expertly infilitrate his unit's permimeter.   But Bradleys and M1A1's make a big difference in urban combat.  When proper combined arms tactics are used, a guerilla force will usually lose battles if they stand and fight.  Fellujah also was heavily boobietrapped but the skill of US Army and USMC combat engineers paid of enormously as well as the bravery of Iraqi troops who were tasked with clearing most of the buildings in areas US forces took.

At any rate, I think what you see in Iraq is a mixture of professional and amateur fighters.  The guy with the PKM for example seemed to know how to use it.  He was firing in short bursts in a good supported position.   But I've seen some video of militants trying to act like Rambo shooting from the hip.  Guys like that die quickly.

What is common with all of them is the constant chanting of "Allah'u Akbar!" and other Islamic sayings.  Religious ferver is the common factor with most of these militants and it is there where I think they are most vulnerable because if they truly studied Islamic theology, they would discover that what they are doing goes directly against most of what the Qu'ran and Hadiths teaches.  If you take away the foundation of their militant beliefs, you take away the base they stand upon.

But if you reinforce it with increased violence, then their movement will grow like a cancer.  Currently we are just feeding their cause with new reasons for them to hate the West.  But hopefully we'll eventually stop feeding this cancer of terrorism and use more intelligent methods of destroying them.

But for the short term, I think that we seriously need to develop an Iraqi Army corps with uparmored T-55's and BTR-80's.   That would be very cost effective and it would provide the Iraqi military some much needed indigenous armor support that they can call upon when things heat up.  A BTR-80 with slat armor should be able to handle most RPG attacks and would be able to more easily and more quickly get to police stations and barracks under seige by militants.  Also perhaps some Mi-24 Hinds could be bought cheaply to provide for their own close air support.  Another cheap alternative would be Mi-8 gunships.  Mi-8's would be a lot more versatile.

But right now Washington DC lobbiests are preventing that from happening as they insist that Iraq buys US weapons (aside from light arms).

I did however see one ray of hope.  Apparently they have at least one T-55 equipped unit.  However the T-55 was not uparmored.  Sending an unmodified T-55 into a RPG rich enviornment is a death sentence for the crew.  However with extra armor plating and panels, the T-55 can really take a beating from RPG's.  The Russian BTR-T is a good example of an uparmored/converted T-55 designed to protect its passengers from RPG's while also providing excellent firesupport from an auto cannon.  

Aside from that, Iraqi military forces need to be indoctrinated with  counter-terrorist Islamic teachings so that these soldiers are confident that when they die, they (in their beleifs) will die as martrys and go to paradise because they are fighting an enemy who wishes to divide Islam and who intentionally murders fellow Muslims, and innocent people such as relief workers who came to help their country.

This stuff isn't rocket science and shouldn't be too difficult to implement.

But sadly these are things that nobody is talking about. I would think that these were simple, common sense solutions.   But apparently in Washington DC, nothing is simple.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

One wounded US Marine on the BBC called them "a respectable enemy" that was able to expertly infilitrate his unit's permimeter.  

Not surprising giving the urban context. After he's finished lobbing mortars, he comes home and is the über-friendly neighbourhood shop keeper giving GI's free smokes. And that's IMO the core problem - that the insurgents have local protection and can easily blend in with the rest of the population.

I think furthermore it's a basic requirement for any guerilla movement. They must be able to hide - just the style of combat isn't enough. Think of hte Bay of Pigs disaster. Why did it fail? Because they had no local support. The idea was that the Cuban people would give them shelter and that they could recruit people. As it turned out, the Cubans liked Castro much more than what was expected and nobody was willing to help the insurgents out.

Quote[/b] ]But Bradleys and M1A1's make a big difference in urban combat. When proper combined arms tactics are used, a guerilla force will usually lose battles if they stand and fight.

Not only armor, but you have air support and most of all disciplined soldiers who know how to keep formation and properly moving.

Quote[/b] ]At any rate, I think what you see in Iraq is a mixture of professional and amateur fighters. The guy with the PKM for example seemed to know how to use it. He was firing in short bursts in a good supported position.

Yes, the machine gunner seemed to know how to handle his weapon. The mortar gunner on the other hand.. well, I'd be surprised if hit anything that wasn't random.

Quote[/b] ]What is common with all of them is the constant chanting of "Allah'u Akbar!" and other Islamic sayings.

You can see the same thing on videos taken by the Chechen insurgents.

I'm wondering how well all that sits with ex-Saddam forces.

Then of course, we have the difference in technology between the insurgents and the US forces - which is significant. Although they are extremely well armed, they can seldom do any direct damage in open combat. It takes quite a few RPG-7's to disable an Abrams. Bradleys can take several punches and the deployed Strykers have been performing very well. The Iraqis on the other hand have technology from the 70's. Every day there are dozens of RPG attacks on US APC's - usually without casualties. Had the US had technology from the 70's or if the insurgents got hold of modern AT weapons, the US casualties would be tenfold higher, if not more.

I am however very sceptical about the organization of the insurgents. Take a look at the old Iraq army. Their best, the Republican Guard was pulverized bot in '91 and '03. The Iraqi military was grossly incompetent - not unusual for an Arab state.

Now my theory about this, and for why little Israel for instance always managed to kick the crap out of larger Arab armies, is that it is a social thing. Take any Arab country and you'll see that the top officers arn't there because of their long military career - but because they're pals with the ruler. The officers below them have their rank because they're relatives of the higher officers etc - leaving a chain of command that is built based on nepotism rather than experience and skill. So it didn't matter how much money they spent on the military, as it was rotten from the inside.

You can see similar things in history, in other places. For instance the Swedish navy, where the admirals were politically appointed (up until the 18th cenutury), in contrast to the army where career officers were propmoted. The result was that during quite a few periods, we had the largest navy in Europe, but still lost battles against insignificant opponents. The army had no such problems.

Bottom line is that the political system of Iraq and most other Arab states is a pre-industrial one. Sure they've gotten up to date with technology and infrastructure, but they still don't get it on a fundamental social level. And that results in top-down corrupt systems. The military is just one example of an incompetent infrastructure.

[Akira 0]

Link

Quote[/b] ]White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs

Gulf War pilots tortured by Iraqis fight the Bush administration in trying to collect compensation.

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The latest chapter in the legal history of torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it has taken a strange twist.

The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.

The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention.

Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.

But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.

"It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this," said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the senior officer among the former POWs.

The case, now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, tests whether "state sponsors of terrorism" can be sued in the U.S. courts for torture, murder or hostage-taking. The court is expected to decide in the next two months whether to hear the appeal.

Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it lifted the shield of sovereign immunity — which basically prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments — for any nation that supports terrorism. At that time, Iraq was one of seven nations identified by the State Department as sponsoring terrorist activity. The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002. They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S. government.

The picture changed, however, when the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein from power nearly two years ago. On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush administration intervened to argue that their claims should be dismissed.

"No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters when asked about the case in November 2003.

Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on "no amount of money" going to the Gulf War POWs. "These resources are required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq," McClellan said.

The case also tests a key provision of the Geneva Convention, the international law that governs the treatment of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers pledged never to "absolve" a state of "any liability" for the torture of POWs.

Former military lawyers and a bipartisan group of lawmakers have been among those who have urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and to strengthen the law against torturers and tyrannical regimes.

"Our government is on the wrong side of this issue," said Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our POWs."

The POWs' journey through the court system began with the events of Jan. 17, 1991 — the first day of the Gulf War. In response to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait five months earlier, the United States, as head of a United Nations coalition, launched an air attack on Iraq, determined to drive Iraqi forces from the oil-rich Gulf state. On the first day of the fighting, a jet piloted by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford Acree was downed over Iraq by a surface-to-air missile. He suffered a neck injury ejecting from the plane and was soon taken prisoner by the Iraqis. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he was beaten until he lost consciousness. His nose was broken, his skull was fractured, and he was threatened with having his fingers cut off. He lost 30 pounds during his 47 days of captivity.

Eberly was shot down two days later and lost 45 pounds during his ordeal. He and several other U.S. service members were near starvation when they were freed. Other POWs had their eardrums ruptured and were urinated on during their captivity at Abu Ghraib.

All the while, their families thought they were dead because the Iraqis did not notify the U.S. government of their capture.

In April 2002, the Washington law firm of Steptoe & Johnson filed suit on behalf of the 17 former POWs and 37 of their family members. The suit, Acree vs. Republic of Iraq, sought monetary damages for the "acts of torture committed against them and for pain, suffering and severe mental distress of their families."

Usually, foreign states have a sovereign immunity that shields them from being sued. But in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, Congress authorized U.S. courts to award "money damages … against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking."

This provision was "designed to hold terrorist nations accountable for the torture of Americans and to deter rogue nations from engaging in such actions in the future," Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and George Allen (R-Va.) said last year in a letter to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that urged him to support the POWs' claim.

The case came before U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts. There was no trial; Hussein's regime ignored the suit, and the U.S. State Department chose to take no part in the case.

On July 7, 2003, the judge handed down a long opinion that described the abuse suffered by the Gulf War POWs, and he awarded them $653 million in compensatory damages. He also assessed $306 million in punitive damages against Iraq. Lawyers for the POWs asked him to put a hold on some of Iraq's frozen assets.

No sooner had the POWs celebrated their victory than they came up against a new roadblock: Bush administration lawyers argued that the case should be thrown out of court on the grounds that Bush had voided any such claims against Iraq, which was now under U.S. occupation. The administration lawyers based their argument on language in an emergency bill, passed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, approving the expenditure of $80 billion for military operations and reconstruction efforts. One clause in the legislation authorized the president to suspend the sanctions against Iraq that had been imposed as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.

The president's lawyers said this clause also allowed Bush to remove Iraq from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and to set aside pending monetary judgments against Iraq.

When the POWs' case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously for the Bush administration and threw out the lawsuit.

"The United States possesses weighty foreign policy interests that are clearly threatened by the entry of judgment for [the POWs] in this case," the appeals court said.

The administration also succeeding in killing a congressional resolution supporting the POWs' suit. "U.S. courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as those filed by the Gulf War POWs," then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. "Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for reconstruction."

Already frustrated by the turn of events, the former POWs were startled when Rumsfeld said he favored awarding compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.

"I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. It is the right thing to do," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee last year.

By contrast, the government's lawyers have refused to even discuss a settlement in the POWs' case, say lawyers for the Gulf War veterans. "They were willing to settle this for pennies on the dollar," said Addicott, the former Army lawyer.

The last hope for the POWs rests with the Supreme Court. Their lawyers petitioned the high court last month to hear the case. Significantly, it has been renamed Acree vs. Iraq and the United States.

The POWs say the justices should decide the "important and recurring question [of] whether U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism [may] seek redress against terrorist states in federal court."

This week, Justice Department lawyers are expected to file a brief urging the court to turn away the appeal.

[denoir 0]

Brilliant, on so many levels.

[billybob2002 0]

Are you shocked? I'm not shocked because this is the same thing that happened to those POWs that were made slaves in Japan during WWII when they tried to sue the japanese.

[kerosene 0]

Yeah, but the Japanese really didnt have the cash to hand out.  P.O.W's got a one off sum that was pretty meagre considering what they'd been through, the number of P.o.W's should also be taken ionto account if your comparing WW2 Japans situation to Iraq's.

Isnt there a consortium looking to recover compensation from Iraq on behalf of Kuwait for a cut of the money or something?  Theres something along those lines happening and its got some pretty big names attached.  

Found something:

Quote[/b] ]Published on Friday, October 15, 2004 by the Guardian/UK  

Carlyle Pulls Out of Iraq Debt Recovery Consortium  

by David Leigh  

 

The Carlyle Group, a large investment firm linked to US and British politicians, has pulled out of a scheme to recover billions of dollars from Iraq, following the publication in the Guardian this week of documents detailing the secret proposals of a consortium with which it was involved.

Carlyle published a withdrawal letter yesterday sent to other members of its consortium.

The consortium offered a confidential deal to use its political influence to collect a $27bn (Å15bn) debt owed by Iraq to Kuwait, despite US pleas for debt forgiveness from other countries.

A Carlyle partner, former US secretary of state James Baker, has been accused of a conflict of interest, because he has been touring the world demanding debt relief on behalf of President Bush, while his firm had a private interest in doing a special deal with Kuwait.

Carlyle's letter, signed by its general counsel Jeffrey R Ferguson and dated October 13, says: "Carlyle does not want to participate in the consortium's work in any way, shape or form and will not invest any money raised by the consortium's efforts."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1015-07.htm

(google Iraq and Debt Recovery for more.)

Iraq needs this money more, just like it needs its oil revenues not to be pissed away through negligence and corruption.  

Are the U.S gov't opposed to the above plan?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, but the Japanese really didnt have the cash to hand out.  P.O.W's got a one off sum that was pretty meagre considering what they'd been through, the number of P.o.W's should also be taken ionto account if your comparing WW2 Japans situation to Iraq's.

The lawsuit went on for years (and still is, I think). The lawsuit I'm talking about is the one in which POWs who were forced to work has slave in the mines of Japanese companies. I think the US govt. had a deal with Japan...

http://harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=178551

[kerosene 0]

Oh, O.K, I only really know how it was for British P.O.W's, they got something like Å40 compensation, a group of survivors went to court a few years ago, but any further compensation was denied.

The compensation didnt even cover the fact that some of these people would suffer medical problems for the rest of thier lives as a result of what happened.

[denoir 0]

Are you shocked?

Shocked, no. Amused is a better word. Americans were tortured by the Iraqis and the Iraqis were tortured by Americans. Originally, the Americans were by American law allowed to sue the Iraqis, but since we all like Iraqis now, they can't do that. And of course since Iraqis now like Americans, the Iraqis cannot sue Americans.